Chris Christie clarifies on amnesty: Illegals need to go to the back of the line

posted at 10:36 pm on June 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

Nice job here by Hannity to press him, however gently, on this morning’s kerfuffle. The takeaway: Christie emphasizes that he supports a path to citizenship for people who are here legally — the significance of which I don’t quite grasp. Does that mean guest workers? Legal permanent residents? In any case, it’s not some hot-button element of the amnesty debate. Hannity follows up by asking whether that means no path to citizenship for people who are here illegally. Whereupon Christie hedges: Well, he says, they should go to the back of the line and — if practical — leave the country while waiting to be admitted through legal channels. Which … is pretty much what everyone who’s to the right of the progressive caucus in the House says about amnesty. In fact, here’s the section on comprehensive immigration reform from Obama’s own website:

* Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: The Obama administration takes this responsibility very seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal traffic in both directions.

* Responsibility from unscrupulous businesses that break the law: Employers who exploit undocumented workers undermine American workers, and they have to be held accountable.

* Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.

So, here’s what we’re left with: The guy’s still fantastic on fiscal responsibility, can still drum out a soundbite like nobody’s business, and is still … a little too Giuliani-esque on this issue for many righties to be comfortable with. But as he’s said repeatedly, he’s not running for higher office anytime soon, so file this away for future reference. We’ll revisit it someday, I’m sure. Click the image to watch.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

The question that should have been asked… and should be asked of every current and potential Governor and Attorney General is does Arizona have the right to do what they’re doing regardless of whether it is good policy for their state.

This is a standard, political answer: “illegals go to the back of the line”. Why? There should be no line. We give away WAY too many visas as it is. Illegals should (by force if necessary) go back to their countries of origin. Period.

Obama’s making a big announcement about immigration reform supposedly tomorrow. Is he a)trying to pass everything possible before the results of November’s election kick in, or b) trying to improve his poll standings?

The first issue is where do they “wait” while at the back of the line? If they’re allowed to stay here while waiting, what’s the point of an immigration policy? Those who are following the process legally usually have to wait in their home country – sometimes for decades – and it would be profoundly unfair to benefit those who don’t respect our laws while continuing to exclude those who do.

The second issue is what if the illegals are allowed to wait here, eventually get to the front of the line, but don’t learn English, or can’t pay the ‘fine’ in accordance with Obama’s ‘plan’? Does Obama want us to believe that at that point, the government will finally deport them?

There are legal ways to come to this country and there are illegal ways to come to this country. If you are illegally here, you get deported…no ifs ands or buts. That is the way the US deals with all illegals, except Mexican illegals. In fact, for any illegal caught…you are banned from ever coming to the US for any reason…except Mexicans.

So, here’s what we’re left with: The guy’s still fantastic on fiscal responsibility, can still drum out a soundbite like nobody’s business, and is still … a little too Giuliani-esque on this issue for many righties to be comfortable with.

Let’s say that someone has been in the US, illegally, for 10 years — earning about $20,000 per year in cash.

Thanks to this person, roughly $30,000 of social security taxes have not been paid into the system. Yet, if granted citizenship, this person would be eligible for social security benefits based on their post-amnesty earnings record.

Green card holders can already get a path to citizenship. Legal immigrants, they just wait in line. I have a friend who has a green card, when she re-ups her green card she gets queried if she wants to go the citizenship route.

There was a time when we wanted the best and brightest, now any bathroom floor cleaner will do if they work for cheap. How times change.

Thanks to this person, roughly $30,000 of social security taxes have not been paid into the system. Yet, if granted citizenship, this person would be eligible for social security benefits based on their post-amnesty earnings record.

Even if you are married…if your spouse comes from any country other than Mexico…you will be made to dance like a monkey to get them here. The system is discriminatory and unfair unless everybody has to jump through the same hoops. Anybody who is for amnesty is a racist who puts their own political survival (or hypocrisy, for those non-politicians how support it) above anything else.

Shame those Russian spies weren’t amnestied into voter citizen status before they were outed, eh politicians? Oh, but that would’ve been different, simple-minded voter. The system wouldn’t have let criminals become citizens.

That’s the point — taxes are so pervasive that any reasonable “catch-up” is essentially impossible for the long-term scofflaw. This makes ANY amnesty a complete sell-out of legitimate immigrants and citizens — it would make more sense to only amnesty those who have been here for less than six months than to grant amnesty for anyone here for longer.

Also consider this: in 2009, Federal expenditures were $3,518B, Federal receipts were $2,105B, and the US population is estimated as 309,162,581 in 2010 (all stats from Wikipedia, so guaranteed accurate ;) ). In other words, the government charged (3518-2105)/0.309 = $4,573 per person in 2009 alone, just like taking a VISA from your wallet and running up the balance.

And that’s only the Feds.

Someone who has enjoyed the benefits of living in the US for 2009 should surely pay a fair share, right? Beyond any taxes that were supposed to have been paid toward that $2,105B, they’re gonna step right up and assume their share of the debt incurred on their behalf, right?

Bull. Illegal aliens should be yanked from the line, handcuffed, prosecuted, imprisoned for 2 years at hard labor, then deported. If they’re caught back in the line, then they get 4 years. Each time charge the country they come from for their room and board.

The problem with any amnesty-light, or sorry, ‘comprehensive immigration reform’, is that the liberals are committed to giving an enormous advantage to Mexicans that are undereducated and barely employable.

We need to get back to a level playing field, where someone in Eastern Europe has as much of a chance to get to America as a Mexican in Tijuana. We need to get back to looking at skills we need in our country, to giving advantage for example to a nurse in Mexico City over a Home Depot straggler in Dallas.

Immigration was once looked at as a way to improve America, now we seem to be taking the dregs of Central America to build the welfare state.

Bull! Hannity could never build the political capital needed to confront liberals like Christie has. Let him do his thing, if he thinks there needs to be a pathway to citizenship so be it. All the other la la land conservatives who like to hide their hatred through talking points like “invaders” or “illegal is illegal” are killing the Republican party anyways. Bob McDonnell, Christie and Brown ran as centrists who know how to solve problems, not as angry innocents who had nothing to do with illegal immigration.

People who are here illegally should be allowed to apply for resident status. They should make that application from their country of origin. Illegals caught here should be deported. Those should never be allowed to apply for resident status. No ‘anchor babies’. Employers caught employing illegals should be heavily fined. 90 day grace period for this to take effect.

Great attempts to derail a Conservative politician AllahPundit. Back to the drawing board because you’re stretching here. No ones interested in your nuance or attempts to nitpick and over analyze someone you know the right-wing likes.

Can we stop eating our own for a hot 5 minutes?! Dude’s doing a kick @ss job in NJ. His stance on immigration might bite him in the @ss down the road if he seeks higher office, but at least let him do what he has to do up there first.

I don’t think Allah’s trying to really over analyze or nitpick – he just likes to rile up the flock and generate some comments. Most of the peeps here (I hope :/) can see it for what it is. He does love to instigate some religious threads…;)

Someone needs to explain once and for all — specifically, with references — just why “we can’t deport them all” as to illegal aliens.

“We can’t deport them all” is the usual and common wail from RINOs and other Leftwingers if not all the Democrats when asked about national security and our borders in relationship to that.

They go on near immediately as if reading well rehearsed lines, “well, we can’t deport them all” (so, they then tend to trail off with anything specific afterward, stating why amnesty has to happen, just don’t call it amnesty).

It’s like a border fence on the Southern border: we hear over and over again how it is that a fence won’t work, or, how it is that it’s impossible to build one.

A number of people have offered up very credible, effective designs for a border fence. They’re ignored.

Billions of dollars wasted on electronics and other “surveillance” technology and all we get for that is a lot of data but no security (not much, not enough, not solving our problem of preventing illegal immigration from the South).

For a portion of that, we could have constructed one of several good designs as to a hard-ware fence (the design I favor in high traffic areas is two-layered, but the general idea of two fences sided with deep canals on both sides is a good one) (and, underground barricades amidst the foundations)…

So much time is wasted by politicians wailing about why we “can’t” do anything effective. We the people really need to just start doing “it” ourselves because otherwise, it’s never going to be done.

And, thus, why I support states’ rights in regards controlling who ‘immigrates’ into their boundaries and who doesn’t.

People who are here illegally should be allowed to apply for resident status. They should make that application from their country of origin.

trigon on July 1, 2010 at 1:28 AM

That’s idiotic. As opposed to enforcing the law, as opposed to putting teeth in it and vindicating people that came here legally, like some of my friends, you propose rewarding these criminals with American citizenship. Really intelligent. Maybe we should give them welfare checks, too, while we’re at it.

But Christie is being somewhat evasive here. I think he’s likely privately in support of some form of amnesty (calling it a guest worker program or not) while he’s doing a great job otherwise confronting general hogwash from the Left.

A guest worker program WOULD be supportable IF and ONLY IF there were pre-determined repairs to our problematic, current conditions:

– the “anchor baby” citizenship fiasco (14th Amendment miscarriage) has to be rescinded/removed BEFORE any “guest worker program” can ever be functional as what it’s called or pretends, perhaps, to be.

– NO “pathway to citizenship” can be associated with any “guest worker program” — worker program maintained entirely separately from all immigration methods;

People who want to come here “to work” then should be able to do just that and only that: work, then go back home after their “work” stint or period is over.

– Require “guest workers” to return at regular intervals to their own nations in order to remain in the “guest worker program” (and related to their final paychecks or something like that — must report back in home nation to get final pay and/or remain there for some fixed time before they can again return to “guest work” another period of time (which would address the “seasonal worker” issue that we hear agriculture needs).

You can’t allow illegal aliens to translate their situations into “guest workers”. Just will cause the latter to fail and the immigration situation to explode.

Illegal aliens MUST be held accountable to the U.S. for their wrongdoing. Call it criminal or not, they’ve violated our laws (likely, numerous laws) and should never, NEVER, be granted amnesty for these violations.

There HAS to be some form of ongoing deportation of illegal aliens. As long as illegal aliens and people involved in illegal immigration from other nations understand that it’s possible to evade punishment in the U.S., they’ll continue to arrive and remain.

So a soft response from the U.S. which includes any reward of amnesty would be ultimately self-defeating for our nation.

Congress HAS to recognize our nation’s need for self preservation. If not, the states must get much busier protecting and defending their own self-preservation and stop expecting the federal government to be effective in enforcing our Constitution (not going to happen, it appears, not until we change who is in Congress and the White House).

I really like him alot and would vote for him as Pres. Unlike BO he comes across as a leader. He is fiscally conservative, says what he thinks and doesn’t dance around trying to be politically correct. He actually answers questions and when he does, it is direct, concise, to the point which comes across as honest and straightforward. No sugar coating bs and I love that. He is refreshing and the polar oppostite of the blathering, arrogant, I’m so smart my sh*t don’t stink campaigner in cheif, Obama.

People who are here illegally should be allowed to apply for resident status. They should make that application from their country of origin.

trigon on July 1, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Naive.

Illegal aliens have networks of so-called “fahm-ah-lees” and other associates who pitch-hit for one another.

Some illegal alien in Chicago needs to “report from back home” and just calls his Whomever in Mexico City who pretends to be the guy in Chicago and takes care of phone calls and forms from Mexico City under false pretenses.

Done all the time, by the way. They don’t call them “illegal” aliens for nothing. There is massive fraud involved in illegal immigration as perpetrated by illegal aliens.

And the U.S. can’t (and won’t) go into other nations to verify identities, generally, for anyone except in cases of extreme national importance (political figures, criminal cases, etc.).

I really like him alot and would vote for him as Pres. Unlike BO he comes across as a leader. He is fiscally conservative, says what he thinks and doesn’t dance around trying to be politically correct. He actually answers questions and when he does, it is direct, concise, to the point which comes across as honest and straightforward. No sugar coating bs and I love that. He is refreshing and the polar oppostite of the blathering, arrogant, I’m so smart my sh*t don’t stink campaigner in cheif, Obama.

artchick on July 1, 2010 at 2:18 AM

I agree as to Christie’s appeal (what you’ve said).

But he’s already said he doesn’t want to be President and doesn’t have any goals set toward such, so, it seems if Christie’s actually so straight-shooting as you’ve described and as many of the rest of us believe him to be, we should believe him that he doesn’t want the Presidency.

Can’t force him to pursue it and if he’s that certain he’s not interested, he’d make a very unhappy President if he won the Office afterward (after being pressured).

Christie would need a change of goals, a change of perspective about the Office for him to pursue it…I agree he’d be refreshing to a great degree in the Presidency should he ever set that as goal to fulfill.

All the other la la land conservatives who like to hide their hatred through talking points like “invaders” or “illegal is illegal” are killing the Republican party anyways. .

conservador on July 1, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Wrong. What’s waging the continued defeat-blows as to the Right is all the people worming their minds around why “we need amnesty”.

It’s red meat to Conservatives. Look at the massive damages done to our nation by illegal aliens and by the one amnesty extended to them (which they also massively abused).

We got no border security — which was the requirement for the Reagan amnesty — but we got 20+ million MORE illegal aliens afterward, all expecting “more amnesty”.

There are laws, they are meant to be enforced. Not enforced, they as well don’t exist (laws not enforced lose credibility).

I’d say that illegal immigration has done more to damage the U.S.A. than just about anything else. It IS an invasion and the problem is not meager or a lightweight one that can be resolved simply by saying, “oh, no problem, here’s citizenship for you.”

Obama’s making a big announcement about immigration reform supposedly tomorrow. Is he a)trying to pass everything possible before the results of November’s election kick in, or b) trying to improve his poll standings?

Drained Brain on June 30, 2010 at 10:45 PM

We need to demand impeachment proceedings begin against Obama if he announces any form of amnesty decision tomorrow (or ever).

He has sworn to uphold the Constitution, to protect and defend it, and among his few specified job requirements is to protect the nation from foreign invasion.

Millions of foreigners entering and remaining in our nation illegally every year is an invasion. The President should be confronting that and doing so with decided, determined action — it’s what he’s sworn to do.

ok, i’m a tech. but whend i came to this country, i was recibed with that “normal jelousy” what exist in every where in the humman kind. i never get my real job i have to work like never in my country of course i can’t come ligal because the American consul denied my visa to work. they want turist people, they solo only want people expend money in this country like bussines men, visitors one week or two and then go back to Mexico. so what i came illigally, and we decided to stay here and suffer the consecucies against us from people no hispanic living in this country why we are categoriced by jeloucy and under the scrutinity. “WE ARE AMERICANS WE THE MEXICANS!!!.

On the flip side, I’ve lived in Silicon Valley since 1986, and have worked alongside of absolutely wonderful people from dozens of countries. Every single one had a horror story of how the US government pulled their chain and jacked them around for no apparent reason.

Why is it that we jerk around the skilled and motivated who truly desire to contribute, while turning a blind eye to unskilled masses who wish to cling to the failed culture that couldn’t support them in their homeland?

Oh, wait — I know! We can’t possibly address this in any way short of a “comprehensive reform” bill that is 90% repulsive to the populace….and is sold as the only way that the 10% that is desirable can ever come to be.

They have to go back to their country of origin to apply for resident status. That means they leave. If we catch them here after the grace period to leave, they are deported and can never apply for resident status.

By applying (in their country of origin) they, by definition, go to the back of the line and it becomes our option to decide when, if ever, they are granted entry to the US.

he supports a path to citizenship for people who are here legally — the significance of which I don’t quite grasp.

Allah; you don’t “grasp” it because yesterday you went down the wrong rabbit hole. So now you are covering your error by stating “it’s too confusing”.
It was obvious, in a quick statement, he just said he was supporting a path to citizenship, and you and others jumped to conclusion.
There are dozens of paths, and you have to give him time to explain.
As you stated this would bother us Reagan fans, and we pointed out to you, no, Reagan proposed the same thing.
Good try though, covering your tracks and all…

supports a path to citizenship for people who are here legally…illegal goes to the back of the line

There was a time when we wanted the best and brightest, now any bathroom floor cleaner will do if they work for cheap. How times change.

tarpon on June 30, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Our nation was built on the backs of those “bathroom floor cleaners”. Ask any Irishman, Italian, Pole, Russian Jew, etc., it’s not the “brightest” it’s the hardest working that made America. Being “bright” is what professors are.

I think his position is a lot like Palin’s. She supported a path to citizenship as well. But she also said border security and enforcement were a priority. I think people are making more of this than they need to.

Years and years before the Ted Kennedy-engineered first amnesty, Mexico enjoyed a disproportionately high influx of legal immigrants.(Check the numbers)

I would therefore say, and hope that the quota-mongers on the left agree with their own philosophy, that quotas be established to determine an affirmative action plan to allow other nations to catch up (just to the oversized legals advantage already enjoyed by Mexico.) Let the entire nation go back to the end of the line and wait its proper turn.

Illegals? Throw them out -period. Why would we want lawbreakers to come into our nation? We already have enough in our inner cities and the Whitehouse?

I would therefore say, and hope that the quota-mongers on the left agree with their own philosophy, that quotas be established to determine an affirmative action plan to allow other nations to catch up (just to the oversized legals advantage already enjoyed by Mexico.) –Don L on July 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM

You make a good point there, although I’m not anywhere near as hard core on the immigration issue as most so I can’t agree on the rest. (No way are the American people ever going to allow anchor kids & their families who’ve been here for many years to be deported back to Mexico, for starters.)

But I have wondered for a very long time why those of us see the imperative of having sanity restored to the immigration process haven’t harped on this more: people of other races & ethnic groups from other countries around the world are being wildly discriminated against in favor of a more protected political class here (i.e., people of Mexican origin.)

We need to reframe the debate & start asking democrats what racial & ethnic animus they harbor against Africans & Europeans & Asians et al, that they would allow Mexican citizens to break the law & jump to the head of the line illegally, but force immigrants from other nations to jump through interminable hoops to have even the hope of being considered for entry let alone citizenship.

There are a lot of immigrants from all those other places who could become instant Republicans if we start calling the Dems out on their racial & ethnic favoritism on this issue.

I am hearing about his clarification before the orignal statement. But I agree, Illegals need a path to citizenship, they just need to go back to Mexico to get on that path. If they are illegally here, how on Earth do we know that?

I say increase the number of people to become citizens from nations that have a higher demand. Then, tell them they need to apply for citizenship. And we will not be accepting forms sent in from a US address, unless it is trully at the border. Let them hand the request to a border station (if they want to avoid postage). If you are an illegal, you need to go home and apply. If I say illegals go at the end of the list, then I would need some way to enforce that. If we don’t know who is here now, how will we know who left?

I’m still stunned that this is some sort of issue with people regarding him.

I wrote this at Ace’s site, but the inconvenient truth that Conservatives don’t want to deal with is that some form of amnesty is GOING to happen. There are just too many illegals here and the problem has been ignored for just far too long. You’re NOT going to kick out millions of people, and a guest worker problem likely isn’t practical and probably at best just mitigate the problem rather than solve it.

The situation sucks, and you don’t have to like it. But much like Christie’s philosophy on using austerity measures to deal with NJ’s financial problems, conservatives need to be pragmatic about the immigration problem, and conceive of a way to legitimize the millions of illegals here while putting real pressure down on assimilation and, of course, border enforcement.

Basically, some of you conservatives are just way too eager to slaughter some of your own most talented members for not being 1000% ideologically pure on some issues. Like Mitch Daniels for example – you’re REALLY going to throw him to the wolves because he came out and said “hey, I’d rather focus upon the economy rather than waste time and political capital making sure those gays don’t have the right to marry one another.”

I would therefore say, and hope that the quota-mongers on the left agree with their own philosophy, that quotas be established to determine an affirmative action plan to allow other nations to catch up (just to the oversized legals advantage already enjoyed by Mexico.) –Don L on July 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM

You make a good point there, although I’m not anywhere near as hard core on the immigration issue as most so I must respectfully disagree with much of the rest. (No way are the American people, including me, ever going to allow anchor kids & their families who’ve been here for many years to be deported back to Mexico, for starters.)

But I have wondered for a very long time why those of us see the imperative of having sanity restored to the immigration process & our borders secured haven’t exploited the PR benefits of emphasizing this more: people of other races & ethnic groups from other countries around the world are being wildly discriminated against in favor of a more privileged & protected political class here -i.e., people of Mexican origin who’re unfairly being given special dispensation from the law by the Democrats whose campaign chests & electoral success benefit from this particular ethnic group’s good graces.

We need to re-frame the debate as one on political corruption & start asking Democrats what racial & ethnic animus they harbor against Africans & Europeans & Asians et al, that they would allow Mexican citizens to break the law & unfairly jump to the head of the line, yet force immigrants from other nations to jump through interminable hoops to have even the hope of being considered for entry let alone citizenship.

There are a lot of immigrants from all those other places who could become instant Indies & Republicans if we turn this issue back on POTUS & the Dems by loudly & repeatedly calling them out on their support for blatantly inequitable treatment based solely on race & ethnicity.

This is a trap people. The moment an illegal alien is discovered and allowed to stay for awhile, he’s no longer “illegal”. The case will then be made:

1) How can he be legal last year and illegal now.
2) He’s working to pay off his taxes, just leave him alone.
3) He’s been part of our society for years (or decades), and he now a legal part of our economy, but being treated like a second class citizen.
4) Without the right to vote and access to all public services, he’s a second class citizen just like slaves after emancipation.
5) We are a better people than that, forcing 20 million to live segregated as second class citizens.

Most of the country, including myself, will agree with all that. Give them temporary or conditional amnesty, and they should be citizens in every way but name only. “Back of the line” is nonsense. It’s meaningless, just a piece of paper, a distinction without a difference.